[Lnc-business] Fwd: LNC Contact Form - Expulsion/denial of memberships redux

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Bishop is not a member. There are no animal members.

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:12 PM Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

> I do object to animals and babies being counted as party members, as I do
> not believe they qualify under our bylaws.  If there were even 4 such
> entries in the count of sustaining members as of 10/31/19, then Texas is
> entitled to one additional delegate seat for this convention.
>
> How many such "sustaining members" were included in the 10/31 counts for
> delegate allocation?
>
> Our bylaws say, "Members of the Party shall be those persons who have
> certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve
> political or social goals."
>
> I love (most) dogs, but dogs are not persons, thus they cannot be party
> members.
>
> Babies and other young children are incapable of having certified in
> writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or
> social goals.  The bylaw doesn't say that members are persons whose parents
> hope their children will later subscribe to those beliefs.  Won't it be fun
> when the first pro-life member in the party purchases a membership on
> behalf of an unborn child, and another faction argues that they're not
> eligible?
>
> -Alicia
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:57 PM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:
>
> > I believe both Dulap Nelson and Bishop Hayes are both paid members.  As
> > are several people's babies.
> >
> > I don't personally take issue with it. Just a point of information.
> >
> > John Phillips
> > Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> > Cell 217-412-5973
> >
> > On Dec 29, 2019 6:26 PM, Alicia Mattson via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > Person B cannot sign the membership certification on behalf of Person A
> > when Person A is incapable of asserting what they do or do not personally
> > believe.
> >
> > Do we really have animals listed in our membership database?
> >
> > -Alicia
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Their legal rights are under a guardian and the guardian must sign or
> > they
> > > are not a sustaining member.
> > >
> > > *In Liberty,*
> > >
> > > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> > > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> > > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> > faux
> > > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:31 PM Erin Adams <erin.adams at lp.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are beings who have received a gifted membership who can not
> > sign
> > > of
> > > > their own volition who may in fact be being counted in the formula
> > that
> > > > decides delegate allocation.
> > > >
> > > > Erin Adams Region 7 alt.
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 29, 2019 3:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos via Lnc-business <
> > > > lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mr Frankel is spot on.
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > From: Libertarian Party <web at lp.org>
> > > > Date: Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM
> > > > Subject: LNC Contact Form - Expulsion/denial of memberships redux
> > > > To: <chair at lp.org>, <alex.merced at lp.org>, <treasurer at lp.org>, <
> > > > secretary at lp.org>, <joe.bishop-henchman at lp.org>, <
> sam.goldstein at lp.org>,
> >
> > > > <
> > > > alicia.mattson at lp.org>, <william.redpath at lp.org>, <
> joshua.smith at lp.org>,
> >
> > > > <
> > > > richard.longstreth at lp.org>, <johnny.adams at lp.org>, <
> > > steven.nekhaila at lp.org>,
> > > >
> > > > <victoria.paige.lee at lp.org>, <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org>, <
> > > > dustin.nanna at lp.org>, <jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org>, <kenneth.olsen at lp.org
> >,
> > <
> > > > james.lark at lp.org>, <susan.hogarth at lp.org>, <john.phillips at lp.org>,
> <
> > > > phillip.anderson at lp.org>, <whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>, <
> erin.adams at lp.org>,
> >
> > > <
> > > > justin.odonnell at lp.org>, <pat.ford at lp.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Contact LNC members:*
> > > >   Contact all LNC members
> > > > Your Information
> > > > *Subject*
> > > >   Expulsion/denial of memberships redux
> > > > *Affiliate*
> > > >   Alabama
> > > > *Name*
> > > >   paul frankel
> > > > *Email*
> > > >   secretary at lpalabama.org
> > > > *Phone*
> > > >   (205) 534-1622
> > > > *State*
> > > >   Alabama
> > > > *Address*
> > > >   710 Chickamauga Cir
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > United States
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa,+AL+35406+United+States?entry=gmail&source=g
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Map It
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=710+Chickamauga+Cir+Tuscaloosa%2C+AL+35406+United+States
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Message*
> > > >   Hello again LNC. My apologies for writing you all so frequently
> > about
> > > > this but I’m not sure whether anyone else is going to raise these
> > points
> > > > otherwise in your discussion or not. I’m again requesting a forward
> to
> > > the
> > > > public list.
> > > >
> > > > 1) “"The Libertarian Party does have requirements to become a member.
> > > Most
> > > > importantly:
> > > >
> > > > • ARTICLE 4: MEMBERSHIP
> > > > 1. Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in
> > > > writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political
> > or
> > > > social goals.
> > > >
> > > > Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this person is in prison for
> violating
> > > the
> > > > individual rights of several people, and that is clearly a violation
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > certification. Until acquitted / found innocent, or until this person
> > has
> > > > served time and offered something to the people whose rights he
> > violated,
> > > > this is a fact and must be taken into consideration.””
> > > >
> > > > Actions which constitute the initiation of force are not necessarily
> > the
> > > > same thing as supporting the initiation of force **to achieve social
> > and
> > > > political goals**. There are various ways the latter can be
> > interpreted.
> > > > Taken in historical context, many have claimed that this was merely a
> > > > cover
> > > > our butts statement to assure the government we were not planning to
> > > > engage
> > > > in terrorism on behalf of our radical agenda of social change, and if
> > any
> > > > LP member did, that we would have their membership pledge to prove
> > that
> > > it
> > > > was not in line with what we are about as an organization. To keep
> > this
> > > in
> > > > perspective the party was created in the early 1970s when there was a
> > > rash
> > > > of politically motivated domestic terrorism from the far left, much
> as
> > > > there now is from the far right.
> > > >
> > > > Another plausible explanation is that it is a certification of
> > opposition
> > > > to initiation of force as seen in libertarian philosophy to achieve
> > > social
> > > > and political goals, which would amount to an anarchist pledge or
> > endless
> > > > debates over whether various minimal government proposals are somehow
> > not
> > > > initiation of force. Although I’m an anarchist myself, I would not
> > want a
> > > > pledge that excludes all non-anarchists from the party, Nor would I
> > want
> > > > endless purge trials over whether any members have expressed support
> > for
> > > > policies which initiate force to achieve social or political goals or
> > > not.
> > > > I hope we can all agree on that.
> > > >
> > > > One thing the pledge does **not** say is “I will not engage in
> > initiation
> > > > of force for any reason.” It’s an admirable standard and one I would
> > > > aspire
> > > > to, but have fallen short of myself, regrettably. It does not even
> say
> > “I
> > > > will not stand convicted in a court of law of criminal activity
> > stemming
> > > > from actions which initiate force.” That’s a far different pledge
> than
> > > the
> > > > one we all took, and while it’s also an admirable standard, I’m also
> > not
> > > > the only party member who has regrettably fallen short of this
> > standard.
> > > > If
> > > > we retroactively reinterpret the existing pledge as being that, and
> > > > enforceable (whereas to my knowledge it never was before) my
> expulsion
> > > > trial ought to be scheduled as well, along with an expensive audit of
> > all
> > > > other memberships and who knows how many other such trials. All the
> > more
> > > > so
> > > > if we also have to investigate all potential new members as well.
> > > >
> > > > However one interprets the membership pledge, there is no enforcement
> > > > mechanism in it, nor to my knowledge anywhere else in bylaws. The
> > > > historical and bylaws experts can correct me if I am wrong, but to my
> > > > knowledge we have NEVER had such a mechanism at the national level. I
> > > > think
> > > > this is probably because people realized that having one could open a
> > > huge
> > > > can of worms. Such a process has existed and been used at the state
> > level
> > > > in various states, to my knowledge only in a small handful of cases.
> > > > However, even those trials often prove to be very divisive and time
> > > > consuming, eating up much time and good will at the state and local
> > level
> > > > and causing many other members to quit or scale back involvement
> > > > regardless
> > > > of the outcome.
> > > >
> > > > 2) “• (Roberts rules) Art. XIII. Legal Rights of Assemblies and Trial
> > of
> > > > Their Members.
> > > >
> > > > 72. The Right of a Deliberative Assembly to Punish its Members. A
> > > > deliberative assembly has the inherent right to make and enforce its
> > own
> > > > laws and punish an offender, the extreme penalty, however, being
> > > expulsion
> > > > from its own body. When expelled, if the assembly is a permanent
> > society,
> > > > it has the right, for its own protection….”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, this does not say what happens if the matter is not
> addressed
> > in
> > > > the bylaws of an organization (“its own laws”). Since our bylaws
> don’t
> > > > have
> > > > an expulsion provision, I don’t see how this section creates one for
> > us.
> > > > It
> > > > just says we have the right to make and enforce such a bylaw, but we
> > have
> > > > not done it. If something in Roberts creates a right to expel
> members,
> > > > this
> > > > is not it.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Gift memberships: Please correct me if I am wrong, but my
> > > understanding
> > > > is that gift memberships are not valid unless the person being gifted
> > > > signs
> > > > the membership pledge of their own free volition, and is a person
> > capable
> > > > of informed consent, regardless of who pays the attending fee.
> > Otherwise
> > > > it’s just a fundraising tool, but does not create a true membership.
> > > >
> > > > As a reminder I also sent a second email which as far as I know was
> > never
> > > > forwarded to the list, correcting a factual matter in my first email:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thomas L. Knapp quoting my first letter: “As US Attorney, prior to LP
> > > > membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy for having consensual
> > > sexual
> > > > activity with a teenage girl and privately videotaping it. As part of
> > the
> > > > prosecution Mr. Barr's office made that video public, allowing
> > unrelated
> > > > adults to watch the two underage children engaging in sexual
> > activity."
> > > >
> > > > TLK: My recollection is different -- or perhaps we're referring to
> > > > different events. {p: no, error is mine; I misremembered what I read
> > > Knapp
> > > > write about this, and he corrects it here p}
> > > >
> > > > TLK: My recollection is that the incident happened after Barr left
> > > > Congress, when he no longer held public office, and possibly while he
> > was
> > > > affiliated with the LP. And my recollection of the incident is this:
> > > >
> > > > In Georgia, trial evidence is a "public record."
> > > >
> > > > A newspaper filed a request for the evidence in the case you mention
> > -- a
> > > > cell phone video.
> > > >
> > > > A judge denied that request because of the content.
> > > >
> > > > As an op-ed columnist, Barr held that the law required the release of
> > the
> > > > evidence, and that if anyone didn't like that, they should get the
> law
> > > > changed.
> > > >
> > > > Which, as a side note, made Barr, not Mary Ruwart, the 2008
> > presidential
> > > > candidate who was on public record as supporting government provision
> > of
> > > > child pornography on demand.
> > > >
> > > > But he was also right. "Don't like the rules, ain't gonna go by them"
> > is
> > > > not a reasonable position for a judge, a bureaucrat, an office-holder
> > --
> > > > or
> > > > a party's national committee. (TLK)
> > > >
> > > > Paulie: OK I mangled that, will need to correct. But that brings up
> > > > another
> > > > good point of consideration: Is merely *advocating* for the
> initiation
> > of
> > > > force to serve political or social goals (or some specific types of
> > force
> > > > involving teenagers, sex and or video) enough for the potential
> > > > revocations/denial of membership being considered? Or does it have to
> > > > involve personal actions? In other words, the way I remembered what
> > you
> > > > wrote involved an actual action under color of law. This refreshing
> of
> > my
> > > > memory makes clear it was mere advocacy in a newspaper column.
> > > >
> > > > In the case that stirred the current brouhaha on the LNC, I am not
> > aware
> > > > that the guy in prison who is trying to join the party is
> *advocating*
> > > for
> > > > making what he is convicted of legal. In fact I do not know what he
> > > > thinks.
> > > > He may be sincerely sorry and have turned a new leaf, he may have
> been
> > > > railroaded, he may think he did nothing wrong, he may just believe he
> > had
> > > > to do what he had to do due to economic reality. In another case
> > someone
> > > > both practices and advocates routinely initiating force and
> > normalizing
> > > > it,
> > > > and obviously fits both criteria - action and advocacy. In the
> > corrected
> > > > version, Barr engages in advocacy but to my knowledge no action, at
> > least
> > > > none that I know of evidence for. How many of these qualify for
> > > membership
> > > > revocation under whatever standard people are proposing here?
> > > >
> > > > For reference earlier I wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As you may know, I read all your public emails, but try to write you
> > > > sparingly (otherwise you'd get more emails from me than you do from
> > your
> > > > own current members, and if I was going to do that I should have run
> > for
> > > a
> > > > new term on your committee; I was on as an alternate in 2012-4). I
> > think
> > > > the membership purge/donation return issue is one that merits my
> > input. I
> > > > hope you'll agree and share my thoughts with the public list.
> > > >
> > > > Emotional cases make bad law, and those who sexually abuse, exploit
> > and
> > > > videotape teenagers are certainly a very emotional case. The more
> > > > fundamental question however is whether LNC has *any* authority to
> > refuse
> > > > a
> > > > membership pledge and donation from *anyone* regardless of what
> > > > reprehensible things they may have done in the past or even do in the
> > > > present or future. One answer is that the bylaws give LNC no such
> > power,
> > > > and thus it would be improper to refuse or refund a membership
> > donation
> > > > and
> > > > pledge from anyone no matter who they are. I understand that this is
> > the
> > > > current ruling of the chair. The other answer I have seen is that
> > > Robert's
> > > > Rules say that in the absence of such a bylaw the governing body does
> > > have
> > > > the right to remove members for cause or refuse membership donations.
> > I
> > > > don't remember the exact citation and I am not a parliamentarian so
> > I'll
> > > > leave it to the parliamentarians among you to hash out, along with
> > > > ferreting out where in Roberts that is, since (I apologize) I do not
> > > > remember a specific cite, only being told that it's there.
> > > >
> > > > A few things to consider:
> > > >
> > > > 1) if you do open the door to membership revocation, it could well
> > > > snowball. There have been many historic cases in other parties and
> > > > organizations where it started small with a tiny number of obvious
> > cases
> > > > and then gradually grew to wide ranging membership purges that
> > devastated
> > > > those respective organizations and crippled them over time.
> > > >
> > > > 2) But, it doesn't always have to. I am aware of a handful of state
> > LPs
> > > > which have revoked a very small number of individual memberships over
> > the
> > > > years, typically after some sort of internal judicial procedure, and
> > as
> > > > yet
> > > > I am not aware that they have devolved into massive membership purges
> > of
> > > > the sort I would be concerned about.
> > > >
> > > > 3) It's also an undeniable fact that individual members who both
> > advocate
> > > > and practice initiation of force in violation of their membership
> > pledge
> > > > and tout their LP membership publicly can and have cause the party
> > > > embarrassment in traditional and social media and among our own
> actual
> > > and
> > > > potential membership as a result; most of the public does not
> > understand
> > > > that we may not have the power to dissociate from members in the way
> > they
> > > > assume any organization can.
> > > >
> > > > 4) This could potentially be an issue to take to the judicial
> > committee.
> > > > But, as at least those of you who have been on the board since the
> > start
> > > > of
> > > > the term are aware, it's questionable whether we have one which was
> > > > impaneled in accordance with our bylaws right now. For those of you
> on
> > > > bylaws committee, please do something to fix the voting system which
> > > > caused
> > > > this, even if it's just going back to the prior one.
> > > >
> > > > 5) If you do open the door to membership removal/rejection in this
> > > manner,
> > > > please consider what precedents you set. For example, do we want to
> > > > establish the principle that once someone has been convicted of a
> real
> > > > crime with victims they can't have a change of heart and honestly
> sign
> > > the
> > > > membership pledge, or that we should assume they don't mean it? What
> > if
> > > > someone does mean it, but despite best intentions does in fact
> violate
> > > > their pledge -- but does not make it an ongoing pattern of behavior,
> > nor
> > > > advocates for it as policy (I can be included in that)? If the
> grounds
> > > for
> > > > membership revocation include actions taken before the pledge is
> > signed,
> > > > do
> > > > they include cases where those actions were done under color of law,
> > yet
> > > > amount to the same exact actions from our moral perspective? Example:
> > As
> > > > US
> > > > Attorney, prior to LP membership, Bob Barr prosecuted a teenage boy
> > for
> > > > having consensual sexual activity with a teenage girl and privately
> > > > videotaping it. As part of the prosecution Mr. Barr's office made
> that
> > > > video public, allowing unrelated adults to watch the two underage
> > > children
> > > > engaging in sexual activity. His actions were legal, but should they
> > have
> > > > been? Would setting this membership removal precedent open up grounds
> > for
> > > > someone else to request a membership revocation for our past
> > presidential
> > > > candidate and life member (if my memory serves correctly) on this
> > basis?
> > > >
> > > > 6) It sounds like regardless of what you do this matter is likely to
> > be
> > > > taken up by the national convention in May. That may be the best
> venue
> > to
> > > > hash this out, especially in the absence of a universally recognized
> > > > judicial committee.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings, if you did. I hope
> > they
> > > > are of some help to you in considering these matters.
> > > >
> > > > Paul Frankel
> > > > 205-534-1622 currently open for voice calls 6 am - 9 pm central, text
> > any
> > > > time
> > > > secretary at lpalabama.org (not writing in my state party capacity but
> I
> > > > hope
> > > > we'll see some of you at our state convention Feb 28-Mar 1 in
> > Birmingham
> > > >
> > https://lpalabama.org/event/2020-lp-alabama-state-convention-2020-02-28/
> > > )
> > > > https://www.facebook.com/paulie.cannoli
> > > > *Email Confirmation*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    - I want to receive email communication from the Libertarian
> Party.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > *In Liberty,*
> > > >
> > > > * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's
> Syndrome
> > > > (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> > > > communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If
> > anyone
> > > > found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social
> > faux
> > > > pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
-- 

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *